Killeriottt wrote:
You are the one who does not grasp the concept of Occam’s razor. So we have a human being who has run faster than all the other human beings (many of whom have trained extremely hard and used PEDs), and you think it is a wild roaming of the imagination to be suspicious of his utilization of PEDs? Furthermore he has a 1500/5000 performance level which is extremely aberrant. I have already explained this. Maybe he can run faster than 3:37 but something does not add up here. You of course are biased as hell but you like to imply that there are no facts to support those of us who are able to use inferences in a manner which you are simply not able to. Please train yourself to use inferences analytically before your reply.
I don't imply that there are no facts -- I asked you to provide some more facts, and instead of providing any facts, you talk about Occam's razor -- which is not a fact.
Facts are neutral. If you think I am biased as hell, you can restore impartiality with neutral facts.
I just explained the principle of "garbage in, garbage out" applies to your aberrant analysis of 1500m/5000m performances.
For some reasons only you know, you suggest that PEDs can cause these observations, and patterns of performance that would less likely without PEDs -- you have done this while providing no facts about PEDs. Does a PED even exist that will turn a 3:37 1500m runner into a 12:35 5000m and 26:11 10000m runner? Any comparable examples in history of such a pattern, that we can attribute its likelihood to PEDs? We cannot use Occam's razor until we can show that one of the options to choose even exists.
You can be suspicious -- it's a free world -- but it is a suspicion based on imagination and no facts. It is based on your gut feeling that "something doesn't add up here".